CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD

Convergence in sonicFoamforwardStep

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   July 26, 2007, 07:03
Default Hi, I tried to run the forw
  #1
Member
 
Lasse Boehling
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 8
lasb is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I tried to run the forwardStep tutorial, but the Courant number is getting very big fast. So I tried to decrease the timestep. This resulted in bigger Courant numbers faster than before. How can that be?

Co = (\delta(t)*U)/(\delta(x))

What can you do in order to run it properly? Initial conditions are those set by the tutorial.

All hints and help will be much appreciated.

-- Lasse
lasb is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 26, 2007, 08:12
Default hi, i am not in expert in t
  #2
Senior Member
 
Stephan Gerber
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 8
stephan is on a distinguished road
hi,

i am not in expert in this area -had only some lessons on gasdynamics - but what exactly happend?
if i run the case (foam 1.3) the max. co keeps constant and the mean co increases first fast and than slower and slower.
what did you expect? i thought the shock-wave runs in the area and therefore the mean co should become higher in the beginning. but if the flow becomes steady the mean co becomes steady too.

greetings
stephan
stephan is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 26, 2007, 08:24
Default hi, i checked me setup agai
  #3
Senior Member
 
Stephan Gerber
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 8
stephan is on a distinguished road
hi,

i checked me setup again - and there are some changes to the tut-case:
i use backward instead of euler for the time in system/fvScheme and changed the tolerances to 1e-10 in system/fvSolution.
with these changes it workes on my pc.
greetings
stephan
stephan is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 26, 2007, 09:40
Default Hi Stephan, I expected a de
  #4
Member
 
Lasse Boehling
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 8
lasb is on a distinguished road
Hi Stephan,

I expected a decrease in \delta(t) would result in a decrease in the Courant number (a slower divergence, (I found the opposite)).

Backward is ofcourse more stable. But the Courant number still diverges after 0.5 sec. Both the mean and max increases, so after 0.57 sec they are ~e30.
It still crashes. Any good ideas?

Thanks,
Lasse
lasb is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 26, 2007, 10:08
Default hi, i run the calculation w
  #5
Senior Member
 
Stephan Gerber
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 8
stephan is on a distinguished road
hi,

i run the calculation with the settings i posted to you up to the endTime(10) and had no problems...
btw i used 4 piso loops but even if i use euler with 2 piso loops (standard) i have no such problems.
did you change any setting for the case?
are you using foam 1.4 or 1.3?

the problem with higher co together with lower dt is still strange.
did you try recompiling the solver and building the mesh again?
maybe you could post the bc-files and the last timesteps which were showed up by the solver ...


greetings
stephan
stephan is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 26, 2007, 10:54
Default Hi, I'm using foam 1.4. And
  #6
Member
 
Lasse Boehling
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 8
lasb is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I'm using foam 1.4. And I ran it with the settings you told me. I'm pretty sure I didn't change any of the default settings, but I'll have to dobbelcheck that one.

I'll let you know if I succed.
Greetings
Lasse
lasb is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 26, 2007, 11:43
Default hi, actually why do you thi
  #7
Senior Member
 
Stephan Gerber
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 8
stephan is on a distinguished road
hi,

actually why do you think backward is more stable than implicit euler?
greetings
stephan
stephan is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 27, 2007, 04:29
Default Hi, I just thought that Eul
  #8
Member
 
Lasse Boehling
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 8
lasb is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I just thought that Euler automatically meant forward (explicit) Euler. And you made it backward Euler (implicit) by typing backward instead of euler. Therefore it would be more stable.
Greetings
Lasse
lasb is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 27, 2007, 05:59
Default hi, if you look at the user
  #9
Senior Member
 
Stephan Gerber
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 8
stephan is on a distinguished road
hi,

if you look at the user/programmers guide fvm:ddt with "euler" in the fvScheme should be the implicit one - fvc:ddt should be the explicit one.(both first order in time).
i dont know the word in english - but "backward" should be something like a multistep-discr. which uses not only u_i to solve for u_(i+1) but u_(i-1) too. (it is second order in time)
in cases of solving ode -both implicit euler and backward should be absolutly stable ( in sense of a-stable) - there are other stability criteria too.
if you plot the stability region of both (implicit euler and backward) both should be in the upper right quadrant of the complex gauss diagramm (plots Re(z) over Im(z)) which says that they are both stable in case the timestep is positive.
its is just my oppinion so please corect me if i am wrong!!!
it is some time ago that i was working with stability...

greetings
stephan
stephan is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 27, 2007, 08:16
Default Hi, You're right about fvm
  #10
Member
 
Lasse Boehling
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 8
lasb is on a distinguished road
Hi,

You're right about fvm is implicit and fvc is explicit. But where do you see that Euler is fvm?

I can only see the sonicFoam.C file where all the ddt are fvm. Maybe that's the place to see it.

Implicit Euler and backward Euler is (as far as I know) the same.

Forward Euler uses u_i and u'_i to calculate u_(i+1) where backward uses u_i and u'_(i+1).
You're right about the stability wrt implicit euler and backward.

Cheers
Lasse
lasb is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 27, 2007, 08:58
Default hi, in my opinion you can s
  #11
Senior Member
 
Stephan Gerber
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 8
stephan is on a distinguished road
hi,

in my opinion you can see it only in the solver equations - correct me if i am wrong.
but still "backward" is not simply implicit euler - it has second order time errors since it uses more than one value from the past.
just do a taylor expansion for u_(i-1) and u_(i-2) (in case you want to solve for u_i) and try to eliminate first order terms while solving for first deriv..


greetings
stephan
stephan is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 30, 2007, 04:02
Default Hi, I think you're right. I
  #12
Member
 
Lasse Boehling
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 8
lasb is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I think you're right. I just don't know where the solver equations are. If I look in the fvSolution it says PBiCG and PBC under solvers for p, U, etc.

Is PBiCG and PBC another way to see if it's implicit?

Greetings
Lasse
Btw. Thanks for your answers so far. It helps me a lot
lasb is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 30, 2007, 08:47
Default hi, as you mentioned, you c
  #13
Senior Member
 
Stephan Gerber
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 8
stephan is on a distinguished road
hi,

as you mentioned, you can see it in sonicFoam.C.
in fvsolution you can find the name and parameters for the solvers of the linear equation system - in foam 1.3 sonicfoam uses versions of the cg-solver.
i dont think you can see if its explicit or implicit in fvsolution although an explicit problem wont need a linear system at all....
regards
stephan
stephan is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 30, 2007, 09:49
Default Hi, Thanks. This may not be
  #14
Member
 
Lasse Boehling
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 35
Rep Power: 8
lasb is on a distinguished road
Hi,

Thanks. This may not be the correct place to pose this question, but I'm very curious:

Are you just very helpful or do you work for openFoam?

Either way, I appreciate your help.

This question is also a little out of context.
In the turbFoam.C file (and other turbulent source codes) they calculate U under the momentum predictor. In the equation there is a line:
+ turbulence->divR(U)
What does that mean? Or where can I read about it?

Thanks,
Lasse
lasb is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
URF and convergence in natural convergence Marie-Anne Main CFD Forum 11 September 11, 2009 10:07
convergence RMS anna CFX 7 October 3, 2006 04:50
convergence vijay FLUENT 6 February 1, 2006 04:04
convergence vijay Main CFD Forum 1 January 30, 2006 14:13
too bad convergence Davoche Main CFD Forum 2 November 20, 2005 06:08


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:21.